I'm not a Woman in Tech • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#291

Post by mpweiher » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:45 PM UTC

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #203

treehau5 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm left believing that my only choice is to have no opinion. I learned this lesson a long time ago from the role models in my life that ended up getting burned because of having a differing viewpoint from whatever societal winds were blowing. I, and I realize probably cynically, now only elect to share, post, tweet, or whatnot whatever only can positively benefit my "brand". Sometimes I have to act like my own PR…

> because if I learned anything, anything you say can and most likely probably will be used against you. Even right now, writing on a niche message board using a fake name, I'm hesitant to voice my honest opinions about anything related to race or gender or other topic like that. it's like there's an army of internet people waiting for you to mess up and will punish you with controversy and/or honestly try and get yo…

Does this ring a bell?

"...so I thought the talk was well received.

But then the discussion began, and it was the most unremittingly hostile questioning I’ve ever had. I don’t mind when people ask hard or critical questions, but I was surprised that I had misread the audience so thoroughly. My talk had little to do with gender, but the second question was “So you think rape is OK?” [..]

After the first dozen questions I noticed that not a single questioner was male."

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-beg...

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#292

Post by monocasa » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #289

monocasa wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cobb County is way more red than most of Atlanta.

Is there widespread stoning of gays? One would think in the year 2017 this might make the news, or at least YouTube or Reddit.

This was in 2004. And define widespread? Like was it sure to happen if you were out? No. If you started a GSA club like he did, more likely. I think the term 'uppity' was thrown around.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#293

Post by ue_ » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:47 PM UTC

StevePerkins wrote: post #163

mercurysmessage wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Free speech goes both ways. The only people I see saying things like 'free speech is dead', are usually the ones who want to say ignorant things and get away with it.

I'll file that away alongside, "The only people who care about privacy are those with something to hide".

Not at all; that's an argument used against the right of privacy. GP was merely remarking that those who lament free speech being dead seem to be, at least from my point of view, those who say bad things. Maybe they have a right to say them, but you'll find this occuring elsewhere.

Voat for example was set up as a website that's like reddit but free from "censorship". That being its attractive quality, many people who value that quality highly went there, and it quickly turned into a truly vile place. My hypothesis is that this happened because the most of the people who could be described as "censored on Reddit" were actually censored for what I would think is a good reason - for saying vile/Nazi/etc. things. Therefore, even if that group was not entirely made of such people, Voat became a place just for them.

I think that communities which have a major selling point of free speech will tend to attract those who feel censored first, and bound to fall into the sort of site almost nobody wants, driving away "legitimate" censored users and failing to attract more people. Most "good" things aren't censored, remember.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#294

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:48 PM UTC

aembleton wrote: post #240

icebraining wrote: post #6

As in some many things regarding politics (in a broad sense of the word), my favorite take on this is by Yes, Minister , specifically the "Equal Opportunities" episode, which overall goes much in the same line as this article. Of course, the irony being that it was written by a man. By the way, if you're interested, I beg you not to read the synopsis. Unlike most, this show has actual actors playing the parts, and th…

Here's the Equal Opportunities episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7KCB6cRruc

Yes, but unfortunately that version is heavily cropped to avoid the copyright detection mechanism.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#295

Post by mpweiher » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:48 PM UTC

scruple wrote: post #287

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because if I learned anything, anything you say can and most likely probably will be used against you. Even right now, writing on a niche message board using a fake name, I'm hesitant to voice my honest opinions about anything related to race or gender or other topic like that. it's like there's an army of internet people waiting for you to mess up and will punish you with controversy and/or honestly try and get yo…

Absolutely. 9/10 of the comments that I write on HN never see the light of day. And not just on HN, but pretty much every social media platform I engage with. I don't feel like I have anything particularly controversial, inflammatory, or offensive to say. But, I so strongly don't want to be perceived that way that I just opt-out most of the time.

"Ask your doctor if Fukitol® is right for you" ;-)

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#296

Post by thedz » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

I'd urge folks in this thread to remember to treat this post as only speaking for Maria, and not as political capital for your personal POV about Women in Tech, because, well, that's the entire point of her post.

Not everyone is going to agree on the best way to foster diversity and inclusiveness, and that's fine.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#297

Post by hyperdunc » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

amiga-workbench wrote: post #164

falsedan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a company should be focused on acquiring the best developers they can, not finding ones of a specific gender I agree, that's why I think companies should consider what is putting off women & why the gender balance in tech is so heavily weighted towards males. That is, most companies (regardless of conscious choice) are finding the best (young, white) male developers only.

I don't think the fault lies at the employment level. I think the societal biases are imprinted in people during their social development. Girls are less likely to be given the equipment and backing to get into software development at an early age, and their peers would rarely understand such an interest. The field and the associated character traits around it are viewed as nerdy or boring, the people who don't give…

Biases are not just socially constructed - they're often rooted in biology. It might just be the case that for biological reasons, females (in general) aren't as interested in creating technology.

The gender imbalance in fields like programming and nursing is larger in the most "fair and evolved" societies (e.g. Denmark), because these societies allow biological gender differences to more freely assert themselves.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#298

Post by kybernetikos » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:58 PM UTC

zzalpha wrote: post #243

kybernetikos wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everyone has about a million things holding them back. The problem is that for any specific individual, focussing on the things holding them back is usually counter productive. For society as a whole, spotting some of those things and trying to remove them can be very beneficial. Telling yourself that you're a victim of other peoples bigotry even if true tends to lead to paranoid, non-growth mindset attitudes…

The problem is that for any specific individual, focussing on the things holding them back is usually counter productive. So what is the alternative? To sit back and hope the problem solves itself? Yes, obviously using minority status as a mental excuse for under-performing is a bad strategy. But I'd claim it's no better to simply ignore the issue. In reality, for a person in a minority group, success is a function o…

I realise that by starting by saying that everyone is held back by something I probably sound dismissive to the people who have to contend with dramatically more than others who are held back by less. I apologise for that. Almost everyone can find factors outside themselves that make their lives harder but some are much more serious and pervasive than others.

As to the alternative? I think that attempting to achieve in your area and simultaneously trying to fix society are big asks. I've noticed some minority high achievers seem to have deluded themselves into not believing that they have been much discriminated against when they clearly have. I think that that is a strategy that can help some people (although they will sometimes then say unhelpful things in the context of a wider discussion). This self delusion is, I believe, part of their maintaining the non paranoid outlook and the growth mindset that has helped them achieve what they have.

> success is a function of personal achievement and minority status. That's just life. To deny that is, to me, simply unrealistic.

I'm explicitly not denying this, I'm acknowledging it and I want society as a whole and companies and other groups of people to spot this and try to fix it. What I am saying, based on personal observation is that being on the look out for these kinds of discrimination is a strategy that may not be in the interests of specific individuals in terms of maximising their personal achievement.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#299

Post by rabreu08 » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:59 PM UTC

Latty wrote: post #136

CM30 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, agreed. I still remember seeing a bunch of college students pushing for 'segregation' at university because it would 'help minorities' and thinking "Wasn't that exactly what we got rid of because it was horribly racist 50 years or so ago?" It feels like all these 'minority only' events and clubs and what not are going straight back to the bad old days. Just from the opposite 'side' of the political spectrum.

Then you don't understand the core problem. You know what, I think people, in general, should be allowed to discriminate. The whole "right to refuse service" shtick - people shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to do, even if they are following stupid beliefs. That said, I recognise there are things that have to beat that. Just like free speech doesn't include shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, we have…

I also can name a few things that are dominated by woman, or latin, jews, etc...

Is this really a problem?

I think that some of these lines of thought, while are valid points to justify and individual problem, tend to fall into a slippery slop that tends to beleving that a true (ideal) society is all greyed out with everyone in the same mold: genderless, opinionless, etc...

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#300

Post by notacoward » Wed, Jul 05, 2017, 5:59 PM UTC

toufka wrote: post #249

notacoward wrote: post #207

The thing that makes these kinds of discussions so difficult is that people often aren't clear (even in their own minds) about eventual goals vs. immediate actions. Absolutely, inclusion and color/gender/whatever blindness is where most of us would like to be eventually. Unfortunately, pretending we're already there doesn't get us there. It just preserves the status quo. As painful as it is, we have to accentuate and…

Is that approach not entirely just an opinion of yours though? How can you state so firmly (in opposition to many here) that "you're practically guaranteeing permanent under-correction". I think that statement is only true if those in the majority have no desire for true equity - which then is begging the question. If the hypothetical 'truly equitable' personality exists, is it not of some moral repugnancy to require…

> How can you state so firmly (in opposition to many here) that "you're practically guaranteeing permanent under-correction"

Because "no more than" usually means "less than" in a vast range of contexts, with computer programs being a rare exception. This is particularly evident in matters of justice. "Innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" and all of the restrictions on evidence practically guarantee that some guilty will go free. Why do we allow that? Because we know that perfect precision is impossible. We can not simultaneously avoid all false positives and all false negatives. As a society we have made a conscious choice on which side to err, and we preclude methods that tend to take us over that line.

The situation as regards equality is the converse. Not only should it be possible for the ragged edge of real-life outcomes to cross our ideal line sometimes, but it must be allowed to happen. If we insist that no measure we take can cross that line, then we limit ourselves to measures that fall short. We can't solve inequality by continuing to give one group unique protection.

> is it not of some moral repugnancy to require them to re-engage with a (by definition) racist or sexist system

In Philosophy 101, a very long time ago, I was introduced to the concept of a dilemma - a situation in which there are seemingly compelling arguments for two mutually incompatible positions. Yes, it's wrong at an individual level to make people re-engage with such a system. It's also wrong at a social level to let them exempt themselves. There is no answer that satisfies both sets of constraints. Real life is messier than an Ayn Rand novel. As you say, there are tradeoffs all around. Forcing people to confront the uncomfortable truth of their own privilege seems like a small price to pay in return for greater progress toward tangible equality.